search
top

Injecting Race

Josh Sugarmann notes that Pennsylvania is number one in Black Homicide victimization. His solution, naturally, is to “put a focus on reducing access to firearms.” I don’t see any reason to inject race into the equation, other than it makes his numbers work out for states that he wants to put pressure on. Any murder is a problem for society, and the solution to fixing the problem of murder is the same no matter what the race, color or creed of the murderer or victim — locking the criminals up, and making sure they serve real time. Studies have shown that among alleged murderers in Philadelphia, nine out of ten have had prior criminal records, with half being charged with either violent offenses or weapons offenses. Josh’s response is to turn society into a low level prison, where the innocent and guilty are likewise punished.

16 Responses to “Injecting Race”

  1. Weer'd Beard says:

    Seems to me, Josh just wants the good old days of Gun control that was the Jim Crow South.

  2. Sebastian says:

    No, I think Josh is just fine with taking away guns from people regardless of color.

  3. Weer'd Beard says:

    Yeah but they know they can’t do it all at once. Hence why they are attempting to start with .50 Calibers and so-called “Assault Weapons”, and I guess now People of Color.

    It’s simply a first step of evil and tyranny. A step I doubt will land in this climate.

  4. Grey says:

    Locking up criminals isn’t the only thing we need.

    We need to rid ourselves of criminals at the point of crime. Self-serve justice, perhaps. Criminals don’t really expect to be caught and punished. But if criminal attacks are stopped with effective self-defense, we should see a drop in crime corresponding to the drop in the criminal population.

  5. mikeb302000 says:

    Yes, indeed let’s keep violent criminals in prison. And let’s stop giving the ones who are on the street such easy access to guns. Background checks on all gun sales would help to do this. Closer scrutiny of the FFL dealers would too.

    Why do you resist these common sense solutions? No one says they’d be 100% effective, but they would help without infringing on your precious rights.

  6. thirdpower says:

    “More scrutiny of the FFL dealers”.

    They tried that. The BATFE became so abusive and arbitrary they had to pass a law to reign them in. But those are facts and you don’t care about those.

    “Background checks on all gun sales would help to do this.” You mean have all sales go through FFL dealers. Odd that at the same time groups like your beloved Brady Campaign are pushing this, they’re also pushing for the renewed ability to litigate dealers out of existence.

    Anti-gun groups are opposed to non-FFL access to the NICS system which would also accomplish this. Ask yourself why.

  7. Sebastian says:

    I’ve said before, Mike, that I’m willing to put universal background checks on the table, but only if our concerns are addressed about the process. You don’t see anti-gun folks lining up to embrace my proposal do you? The Brady folks read me.

  8. Weer'd Beard says:

    “No one says they’d be 100% effective, but they would help without infringing on your precious rights.”

    MikeB302000 you admit to owning guns criminally.
    http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/10/mikeb302000_lying_criminal.html

    Will you care to explain how a universal background check law would have stopped you from committing your crimes?

    If you care so much about criminal activity why are you so resistant to using your own checkered past as a way to show the flaws in the system?

  9. mikeb: How, exactly, would putting background checks on all firearm transfers have any effect on criminals? They’ll still continue to buy and sell firearms amongst themselves (and steal or otherwise illegally acquire [read: straw purchasing, which is already illegal] firearms from others) without any problems at all.

    It’s already illegal for criminals to own guns, buy guns, sell guns, be around guns, or otherwise have anything whatsoever to do with guns. Several states, such as California, require all legal firearm transactions go through a dealer and undergo a 10-day waiting period. This hasn’t had any measurable effect on crime, though it’s seriously cut back on legal transactions at gun shows and legal person-to-person transfers.

    Perhaps you could explain how requiring background checks on all transfers would have the slightest effect on criminals?

  10. Weer'd Beard says:

    I’m betting Mike won’t be back on this issue. See he WAS (or maybe still is) one of those criminals. He knows first hand how toothless the gun control laws he praises are to the criminal element.

  11. Zak J says:

    Talk to your thug on the street & he’ll tell you most guns used by those with criminal records come initially from burglaries. Keep your guns within reach when you’re home, but for God’s sake, lock them away when you aren’t.

    The vast majority of urban murders are fueled by drugs, the drug trade or the cultural influence of drugs. If anybody really wants to do something about the US (and Mexican) murder rates, start by ending prohibition and let consenting adults inject whatever foul substance they want to into their own bodies. It would also undermine the Taliban, FARC, etc. But ending prohibition would take political courage, so I guess we’ll have to wait.

  12. Bob S. says:

    MikeB302000,

    Since you don’t discuss your illegally owned firearms in detail, perhaps you could provide some generalities.

    What year did you obtain them?
    What City/State did you obtain them in?
    Did you purchase the firearms from a person, a store or obtain them by an alternate method?

    3 simple questions so we can determine what laws were in place at the time and how any changes to the laws would impact how you obtained firearms.

  13. mikeb302000 says:

    Bob and Weer’d, You guys sound like a broken record. I’ve written a post which you’re well aware of in response to your obsessively asking about my past.

    About my having owned legal and illegal guns, I don’t plan to expand on it. Sorry to disappoint. My personal life’s experiences, including my experience with firearms, all contribute to making me who I am today. The same is true for everyone. My choice to remain anonymous and to keep my private life off the pages of this blog, to the extent that I do, is my choice. You can respect it or not, that’s your choice.

    So, after having clearly said “I don’t plan to expand on it,” you guys keep asking. Do you think you harm me in some way by asking something that I refuse to answer?

    I summed up my post with a question.

    About illegal ownership of guns, do any of you admit to that? Isn’t it possible to qualify as having owned guns illegally without categorizing yourself with the murderers and crack dealers?

  14. mikeb302000 says:

    Arizona Rifleman, Maybe you just don’t want to admit it, but eliminating one of the sources of guns which criminals use would have a positive impact, but not if they can simply drive to a gun show in another state three hours away.

  15. Weer'd Beard says:

    “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fu**ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fu** young girls. Juries want to fu** young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!” -Convicted Pedophile and Rapist Roman Polanski.

    MikeB302000 if you want to have some shared experiences you’ll be better off talking to other criminals rather than us.

  16. Bob S. says:

    MikeB302000,

    My choice to remain anonymous and to keep my private life off the pages of this blog, to the extent that I do, is my choice. You can respect it or not, that’s your choice.

    You choose not to respect the rights of others AT ALL. Other people have the right to keep and bear arms — the very same right you exercised legally and illegally — yet you call for the restriction of that right while asserting your right to privacy.

    Then you wonder why we call you a hypocrite.

    You have first hand knowledge of how ineffective gun control laws are — yet you call for more laws without showing a shred of evidence that those laws will affect anyone other then the law abiding.

    Then you wonder why we call you a hypocrite.

    You write blog post after blog post that runs like this

    On {Insert Date} a criminal committed {insert crime here} with a firearm resulting in {death or wounding – pick one) of the {criminal or law abiding gun owner – pick one}.

    This shows that
    a.) Because criminals can get guns — we need to restrict the rights of everyone
    Or
    B.) Because law abiding gun owners defended themselves or their property– and I don’t think that is FAIR (whining voice) — we need to restrict the rights of everyone.

    And you call Weer’d and I broken Records for pointing out how gun control laws didn’t stop you?

    Then you wonder why we call you a hypocrite — and a troll.

top